Ministry of Justice

Due to data protection requirements, this information cannot be disclosed. The Ministry of Justice notes the Cabinet Office’s new guidance on Direct Ministerial Appointments (DMAs), including the information to be published when such appointments are announced, and the creation of a new portal for these announcements.

All DMAs enclosed in PQ 98098, with the exception of the English Law Promotion Panel (which is unremunerated), were made before the guidance was published. Going forward, the Ministry of Justice will ensure that announcements of DMAs are made in accordance with this guidance.

We recognise the importance of removing barriers to employment for ex-offenders. Employment reduces the chance of reoffending significantly, by up to nine percentage points in the year following release, and a similar percentage point reduction for prisoners who take any form of learning activity. The criminal record regime has a role in this process, striking a balance between providing employers with the information they need to make safer recruitment decisions, while enabling ex-offenders to rebuild their lives.

We recognise that disclosure requirements and the approach of employers and learning institutions can have a significant impact on an individual’s employment opportunities and access to education. This is also an area that Sir Brian Levenson’s recent independent review of the Criminal Courts highlighted. The Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in his Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 2 December 2025 that we are considering Sir Brian’s recommendation, including opportunities to simplify the regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.

Recall is a last resort for cases where risk in the community becomes unmanageable.

The Department published an Equalities Impact Statement alongside the Sentencing Act, which can be found here: Sentencing Bill equalities statement.

It was assessed that the Act’s recall measures will not disproportionately impact those with protected characteristics.

HMP Dartmoor has been temporarily closed since August 2024 following the detection of radon gas. We have been working with specialist radon experts to investigate and assess options to allow us to reopen the prison safely.

The decision on reopening will be made based on the viability of the site, the effectiveness of works to reduce levels of radon, and value for money. We need to be satisfied that reopening the prison is justified in the light of a range of considerations, including compliance with legislative requirements, operational viability, and the cost of mitigation measures. To date, approximately £1.2 million has been spent on radon mitigation.

The freehold of the site on which HMP Dartmoor is built is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Ministry of Justice has a full repairing and insuring lease. Any costs to maintain the buildings and make them safe and habitable therefore fall to the Department for the duration of its lease.

The Bill will provide non-means tested legal help and advocacy for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is named as an interested person. As under the current system, the amount paid will depend on the work carried out by the provider on the inquest, which will be different for each case depending on its duration and complexity.

Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice ministers have met to discuss progressing the manifesto commitments on youth justice and probation. Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice officials continue to work together to progress this.

The Ministry of Justice is not responsible for policing and therefore has not received a request in respect of the devolution of policing.

No discussions are planned. We are confident that the measures in place to ensure proper care for prisoners who refuse food are in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

• The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and

• The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

• The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and

• The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

• The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and

• The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

• The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and

• The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of criminal offences including those under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. Data within the published tool can be disaggregated by ethnicity and sex.

The data specific to offences under section 25 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is available by selecting the HO offence filter and using the following codes

• 02304 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02305 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02306 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02307 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02314 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02315 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02316 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02317 - Sexual activity with a male child family member - offender not 18 or over at time of offence and victim under 13
• 02322 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02323 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02324 – Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 – offender aged 18 or over – no penetration
• 02325 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02330 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged under 18 – penetration
• 02331 - Sexual activity with a male child family member under 13 - offender under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body
• 02332 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body
• 02333 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of criminal offences including those under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. Data within the published tool can be disaggregated by ethnicity and sex.

The data specific to offences under section 25 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is available by selecting the HO offence filter and using the following codes

• 02304 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02305 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02306 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02307 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02314 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02315 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02316 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02317 - Sexual activity with a male child family member - offender not 18 or over at time of offence and victim under 13
• 02322 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02323 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02324 – Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 – offender aged 18 or over – no penetration
• 02325 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02330 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged under 18 – penetration
• 02331 - Sexual activity with a male child family member under 13 - offender under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body
• 02332 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body
• 02333 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body

The Government values the vital role that child contact centres play in supporting safe, positive relationships between children and their parents, particularly at times of family difficulty.

The Government is not responsible for setting the fees charged by child contact centres. Child contact centres operate independently and are responsible for setting their own pricing structures, which may vary according to the type of contact provided, the centre’s funding arrangements, staffing requirements and geographical location. As such, the Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the financial cost to parents of attending a child contact centre.

Whilst judges already prioritise cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, including domestic abuse, we know that victims who cases are heard at the Crown Court are waiting too long for justice.

That is why this Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. After considering the recommendations made in Part 1 of this report, we have announced our intention to take forward a bold package of structural reforms, designed to improve timeliness in the Crown Court and speed up justice for all victims, including victims of domestic abuse. This financial year we also funded 111,250 Crown Court sitting days – an all-time high.

We have also published our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy - ‘Freedom from Violence and Abuse’ - setting out the Government’s approach to tackling domestic abuse and other offences perpetrated against women and girls. We are already acting by:

• Investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years.
• Repealing the Children Act’s presumption of parental involvement and expanding the Private Law Pathfinder pilot.
• Making trauma-informed training available to all criminal court staff by spring 2026 to improve how courts support victims.
• And exploring the expansion of Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts.

It is right that the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was abolished. Public protection will always be the top priority and abolishing the IPP sentence retrospectively would result in prisoners being released whom the independent Parole Board has determined are too dangerous. This would pose an unacceptable risk of harm to victims and the public.

We are determined to support those serving IPP sentences, but not in a way that undermines public protection. This is why the Government made changes in the Sentencing Act 2026 to provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm

Section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and Detention for Public Protection (DPP) offenders and their progress towards release from prison or licence termination and lay the report before Parliament.

Although there has not been research conducted in this area the Government published its latest IPP Annual Report on 17 July 2025, which included a commitment for HMPPS Psychology Services to complete a review of the Never Released IPP cohort. The review aims to ensure the current barriers to IPP progression are considered and services reviewed relating to these findings to support IPP progression. We will report on the outcome of this review in our next Annual Report, which is due to be published this summer.

The 2025 Annual Report also contained a refreshed version of the IPP Action Plan, which includes measurable targets to ensure transparency and accountability.

Through the IPP Action Plan we have significantly improved support for those serving the IPP sentence, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support.

Changes we have made in the Sentencing Act 2026 will provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm.

The Government recognises the vital role probation officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. Recruitment and retention continue to be a priority and through these efforts we are starting to see the positive impact of a centralised recruitment process as a large number of qualified probation officers come through the pipeline.

In 2024/25, we exceeded our commitment to onboard 1,000 trainee probation officers, successfully onboarding 1,057. We are now going further, having committed to onboard a total of 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025/26. Probation officer numbers have increased over both the last quarter and the last year. The Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) 20 recruitment campaign, which went live on the 19^th of January, will further support our efforts to maintain strong recruitment momentum and sustain the pipeline of future probation officers.

A retention toolkit has been developed, informed by research into the drivers of attrition. This toolkit supports local, regional, and national interventions and is used alongside structured exit interviews which were introduced to gather feedback and shape future actions. It is positive that we are seeing a continued reduction in Probation Service attrition.

Both probation officer numbers in post and leaving rates can be found at HM Prison and Probation Service workforce quarterly: September 2025 - GOV.UK

Data on the prison population are published as part of the Department’s Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) release. The most recent publication includes prison population data as at 30 September 2025.

The information requested—relating to the prison population as at 1 January 2026—cannot be provided at this time, as doing so would provide an early indication of the data underpinning a future iteration of these Accredited Official Statistics, scheduled for publication on 30 April 2026.

The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.

Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.

Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.

Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.

Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.

Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.

Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.

Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.

There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.

The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.

The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.

Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.

Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.

Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.

Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.

Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.

Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.

Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.

There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.

The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.

The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.

Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.

Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.

Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.

Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.

Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.

Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.

Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.

There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.

The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.

The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.

Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.

Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.

Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.

Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.

Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.

Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.

Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.

There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.

The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.

It is right that the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was abolished. The Justice Committee and various organisations have considered a resentencing exercise but none have identified an approach that would not pose too great a risk to the public.

Whilst this Government does want to make progress in relation to IPP prisoners, we cannot take any steps that would put victims or the public at risk.

The Government recognises the vital role played by the legal profession in upholding access to justice and the rule of law, which is fundamental to a fair and democratic society. The Government is clear that intimidation, harassment or threats against legal professionals or their offices are wholly unacceptable. Where such behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, it is right that those responsible should face the full force of the law.

The Government works with partners across the justice system to promote respect for the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession. Domestically, this is underpinned by a robust legal and regulatory framework designed to protect professional independence and integrity, consistent with the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Internationally, the UK was proud to be among the first signatories to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer in May 2025, which sets clear international standards to ensure legal professionals can practise without harassment, intimidation, or improper interference.

In addition, there are robust security arrangements in place across courts and tribunals to protect all court users, including legal professionals. These include risk assessment measures to prevent, detect and respond to threats, such as security screening on entry, CCTV, and the powers of Court and Tribunal Security Officers to exclude, restrain or remove individuals threatening violence. The Government has also allocated over £20 million in additional funding in 2025/26 to further strengthen court and judicial security, including additional security officers and physical security systems.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.

Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.

Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.

Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.

Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.

Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.

Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.

Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.

Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

The Government, in conjunction with other bodies such as the Civil Justice Council (a statutory advisory body), professional bodies and regulators, keeps the civil justice system and regulatory framework under review to ensure it is operating effectively, fairly and transparently.

Protections for consumers who seek compensation through collective action litigation are provided through the legal and regulatory framework governing legal services. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) independently regulates solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales, including those advising consumers in collective action claims, and requires them to comply with professional standards to protect consumers. This includes duties to act in clients’ best interests, to provide clear and transparent information about costs and risks, and for firms to maintain effective complaints-handling procedures to allow consumers to seek redress. Where appropriate, consumers can also refer their complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, which considers complaints about the standard of legal services provided.

We are aware of concerns around fairness and transparency in cases funded by third-party litigation funders, many of which are collective action cases. In light of these concerns, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and wide-ranging review of litigation funding which has been critical in informing our policy development in this area. As recommended by the Council, we will introduce a new regulatory framework aimed at enhancing claimant protection, transparency, and the effectiveness of the litigation funding market. We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice. That is why we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.

As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.

The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.

The performance of the criminal justice system as a whole against the requirement for timely delivery of prisoners to court is 98.31%. The latest available annual figure (1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025) for Prisoner Escort and Custody Service contractors’ performance against the indicators on timely delivery is 99.92%. We keep the contractors’ performance under constant review.

Penalties, known as service credits, are incurred for delays attributable to failure on the part of the contractor. They are calculated from the point 15 minutes after court proceedings are ready to commence – provided it is within the agreed court start times. A service credit is incurred for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof (in which case the supplier is penalised for a full fifteen minutes).

During the 12 months from 1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025, out of 343,638 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, there were 273 instances of failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.

The performance of the criminal justice system as a whole against the requirement for timely delivery of prisoners to court is 98.31%. The latest available annual figure (1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025) for Prisoner Escort and Custody Service contractors’ performance against the indicators on timely delivery is 99.92%. We keep the contractors’ performance under constant review.

Penalties, known as service credits, are incurred for delays attributable to failure on the part of the contractor. They are calculated from the point 15 minutes after court proceedings are ready to commence – provided it is within the agreed court start times. A service credit is incurred for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof (in which case the supplier is penalised for a full fifteen minutes).

During the 12 months from 1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025, out of 343,638 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, there were 273 instances of failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.

We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.

Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.

We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.

Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.

We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.

Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

For the period from April 2022 to March 2023:

• Adults released from a custodial sentence had a proven reoffending rate of 37.5%. Men released from custody had a reoffending rate of 36.9% and women released from custody had a reoffending rate of 46.0%.

• The average number of reoffences per reoffender following release from custody was 5.18 for men and 6.78 for women.

• The total number of reoffences was 80,293 for men and 9,718 for women.

Proven reoffending rates, average number of reoffences per reoffender, and the total number of reoffences by sentence length for men and women can be found in the attached Excel table.

Public protection is our priority so offenders out on licence face strict conditions such as being tagged and can be hauled back to prison if they break these rules. Since 2018, recalled offenders have doubled — a symptom of the prison crisis this Government inherited. That’s why we're reforming sentencing and building 14,000 extra places, to make sure punishment cuts crime, reduces reoffending and keeps victims safe.

The information requested is set out in the attached table.

Please note that the figures in the table have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Where necessary, [c] has been used to suppress values of one or two to prevent the disclosure of individual information. Further disclosure control may be completed where this alone is not sufficient. This could include the secondary suppression of zero values.

The information requested is published and can be accessed at the following link: Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK.

The information requested is set out in the table below:

Offenders assessed as high to very high risk of serious harm, released homeless or rough sleeping on first night of release, England and Wales, April 2024 - March 2025.

All prisoners at risk of becoming homeless and who are supervised by probation can be offered up to 12 weeks of basic accommodation on release by HM Prison and Probation Service with support to move to settled accommodation. This programme has been gradually rolled out nationwide since July 2021 and since then has supported over 23,100 prison leavers who would otherwise have been homeless. For those prison leavers and people on probation who present the highest levels of risk of harm, placements can be provided through our CAS1 Approved Premises provision.

Data caveats:

• Data sourced from nDelius; while data has been assured as much as practical, as with any large administrative dataset, the possibility of errors cannot be eliminated.

• To protect the disclosure of personal information of any individual, all cases within the tables are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5.

• Releases from custody include: releases following recall, releases following committal to custody for breach of post sentence supervision and releases at sentence expiry or post sentence supervision expiry.

• Release on temporary licence (RoTL), releases where the individual is subject to same-day recall to custody, releases from unsupervised short sentences and releases both to and from Immigration Removal Centres are not included.

• Where an offender has been released from custody more than once in the period, they will be counted once for each release, with the accommodation circumstance relevant at the time of that release.

• In instances where an individual has had multiple releases on the same day, only one of the records is assessed. All other instances of the records are excluded.

• Due to use of different inclusion criteria and data cleansing, the total volume of releases in this dataset will not necessarily match official statistics for total offender releases.